Germany is successfully limiting the amount of carbon, energy and resources required to grow its economy. Though the public is generally satisfied with the level of environmental quality, the OECDs Environmental Performance Review of Germany warns that challenges remain in areas like air and water quality, the protection of biodiversity, and de-carbonising energy production. It says that Germany will need more cost-effective policies to achieve its ambitious environmental objectives which, in some cases, go beyond those established in the European Union.

Stringent environmental requirements have helped to make Germany a leader in the environmental goods and services sector. Worth up to EUR 300 billion by 2020, green is an important source of economic growth and jobs.

OECD Environment Director, Simon Upton said, Todays massive environmental challenges demand cost-effective solutions that promote innovation and avoid technological lock-in. New sources of green growth can play an important part in the recovery from the current economic and financial crisis. In this, Germany is leading the way.

See the data in Excel here See the data in Excel here

The report presents 29 recommendations including:

Strengthen assessment of the impact of economic policies on the environment and the impact of environment-related policies on the economy. Design financial support for green innovation to encourage private investment capital Systematically assess the environmental impact of subsidies, with a view to phasing out those that are environmentally harmful and economically and socially inefficient. This includes adjusting subsidies for renewable energies. Tax energy in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System and provide a consistent carbon price signal across the economy.

For further information, journalists should contact Ivana Capozza in the OECDs Environment Directorate; tel.: +33 1 45 24 16 78. For a copy of the report, email: news.contact@oecd.org.

For more information on this report see the Highlights. For information on the OECDs environmental work see: http://www.oecd.org/environment.

Just thought I might throw a little fly in the ointment for those who think Green and jobs cannot be combined. Of course the government cannot create real jobs, but corporations focused on high-tech resource efficiency and overcoming current or looming supply shortages most certainly can. To a certain extent some of the high costs of energy are government creations. However, dealing with these restrictions at home is clearly making German companies fit for the future.

Actually during the weekend before last, 50% of German electricity demand was covered by solar power.

Are there a lot of challenges? Absolutely. Is it technically feasible. Absolutely.

I remember a few years ago when Americans used to believe that anything was possible and that they were the country that could make it happen. Nowadays and unfortunately very frequently at FR when it comes to energy-related topics, the comments seem to be about how anything that embraces systematic energy change is a left-wing plot and that there is no way the US can do it. It’s a shame that belief in yourselves has been so intensely sapped.

3
posted on 06/04/2012 12:49:21 AM PDT
by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)

Um, wow. What a bunch of eco-hobbit blather. Seriously. Subsidized “green energy” companies are a drain, not a plus. If Germany stays this course, they’ll fall, too, until the populace latches onto to some charismatic leader who starts killing large numbers of people wholesale.

Read this book before. It ends poorly for everyone...

4
posted on 06/04/2012 12:52:22 AM PDT
by piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)

Oh, and to elaborate: the only economically viable sources of energy neceesary to sustain a real economy are fosil fuels and nuclear. “Greens” oppose both. Thorium reactors show some promise with no negative impacts from the “green” perspective, but greens oppose those, too, because the goal of the “green” leaders is power over others, not the environment.

5
posted on 06/04/2012 12:56:39 AM PDT
by piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)

But examples of how poorly the “Green” charade actually works are legion.

Once the “Subsidies” subside, so does the “success” of the companies involved.

I mentioned Scotland, several articles make it clear that wind has been an utter failure there, particularly since the dread “Carbon” is required in order to keep the turbines warmed and viable when the temperature and wind both drop.

“Solyndra” ring a bell?

How about the sudden death of Solar companies in Spain?

No subsidy = “Green” cannot compete.

Gov. Org. can fake it for a while, but in the end reality becomes apparent.

Carbon is king because it WORKS the best, that is reality, good intentions and fairy dust will not change that reality.

BTW, I have a “Green” propane powered truck (which I despise, very anxious to be rid of it!), my home is run from a grid that has one of the largest percentages of Geo-Thermal in the world.
So do not assume I dismiss the “Green” fantasy out of hand, I’ve done more research than the average poster here.

I don’t believe that solar is going to be THE solution in cloudy Germany. I do beleive that a low-carbon economy is possible though. CCS will have to play a role. The biggest progress on that is being made in the US at the moment.

For the record, there are dozens of reports on the 50% mark. It wasn’t “just” Reuters. Feel free to type it into google. If you type in “Deutchland 50% Solarstrom” you will get even more, but you may need to use google translate

14
posted on 06/04/2012 1:23:03 AM PDT
by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)

The only way “green” works is if you export manufacturing and switch to a service based economy then tax the hell out of it to subsidize the “green” crap. So what should become obvious to anyone is that doing so does not really reduce carbon output much, it just shifts it to other lesser developed countries. It might even increase carbon output since those lesser developed countries are going to have less advanced infrastructure and power utilities...and more transportation efforts getting the finished goods shipped back to the developed world.

It makes an interesting little social engineering experiment for the ruling elites to play with. But I see no benefit to the planet or to humanity.

The relationship of Germany’s expense on RE to Greece is an irrelevant distraction to the conversation.

The fact that I originally wrote that 50% was covered on the weekend by solar alone was an indication of what was possible, not a comment on current status. Don’t you understand that?

Lastly, the fact that since 2009, with a growing economy, Germany has increased its renewables context by 25% is an amazing achievement that proves significantly more is possible. Not sure why you don’t get that either.

To extrapolate a bit, assuming that this approximate 8% growth rate could be maintained, 50% could be achieved by mid-2016. If it dropped down to 6% it would be achieved by 2018. Slower means longer, but it still can be achieved.

The cost is an issue and the solar panel production industry in Germany has gone bust due to the Chinese. Of course, Germany has a near monopoly on the companies that produce the machines that produce the solar panels. And, by building the grid and corresponding technology to manage it, the country positions itself to take advantage of massive opportunities internationally.

I would kindly ask you to explain to me what it is that you actually disagree with. I just don’t get it.

24
posted on 06/04/2012 2:36:07 AM PDT
by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)

Do the math: 82,000,000 times 6,700 = about 550 billion kWh. So to produce 50% of that demand would take solar cells covering an area of 26 million square feet. Delaware is about half a billion square feet, so I was off there - I'll accept the hit on the hyperbole. But 26,000,000 square feet is HUGE.

That's the problem with you green types: basic math.

25
posted on 06/04/2012 2:54:25 AM PDT
by piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)

You wrote: I would kindly ask you to explain to me what it is that you actually disagree with. I just dont get it. You have a lot of faith in Government action and propaganda. There is nothing wrong with renewable energy per se. But you have a lot more belief in Paul Ehrlich than Adam Smith. I dont.

First of all the 50% number is completely arbitrary. Why is it important to say half? Mathematically it is irrelevant. It is just a milestone. When that milestone is reached is just a matter of human habit.

It could just as easily be a Kilowatt hour number - but that would be meaningless to most people.

The point of the article and my point to begin with is that a low-carbon power system is clearly possible and Germany is leading the way.

I suppose your point is to say that it isn’t possible, but you have provided absolutely no basis for this whatsoever. Just unsubstantiated statements and a frequent use of profanity. Feel free to read my tagline in that respect.

28
posted on 06/04/2012 3:36:57 AM PDT
by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)

The point of the article and my point to begin with is that a low-carbon power system is clearly possible and Germany is leading the way.

Germany's low end energy intensive industry has been outsourced to China. Remaining industry does well adding value per unit of energy (e.g. high end cars). Germany helps China with "clean" coal technology. This is their greenspeak for adding billions of tons of CO2 emissions to the world while pretending that they are combatting global warming. Meanwhile our stupid moron of a president has been shutting down coal electric plants so instead we export that coal to Germany to use in their coal electric plants (about an 8x increase).

The solar power contribution that you keep touting was only possible due to the 50 cent per kWh subsidy now being lowered to 20 cents. That was basically a tax on poor people to pay their rich neighbors so those neighbors could pretend to save the environment (and make money). The average household pays about 22 cents per kWh, double our rates. But being crowded into apartments with the heat set to 60 degrees is the German people's choice, although not mine.

This article is all about whistling in the dark. The German people are fed up, read the articles about Merkel and the perception that she is forcing this issue which is hurting the German economy and standard of living. You ignore logic and common sense to ignore the facts that: available forms of green energy are double the cost,are dependent on sunny days and no nights, require backup carbon based energy because of inconsistent generation. The thing that has caused the standard of living to rise as nations develop is increase in productivity. Solar/green energy has proved it severely decreases productivity by increasing costs via subsidies, increased generation costs, decreased efficiency of production and the need for backup systems. Therefore green energy will decrease the standard of living for great swaths of people as was seen in Spain and as is being seen in Germany. Climate change is a fairy story, being maintained by those eager to control us and get rich by schemes to purportedly fix what isn’t broken. The Germans are waking up so the compliant press is attempting to cheerlead them back into line. Your”facts” are cherry picked” factoids that dissolve when examined.

Piyar's math doesn't take in to account external costs. What are the costs of pollution from burning coal, land degradation of strip mining coal, and railroading the coal. We externalize these costs by socializing them. The rate payer is not paying for them, the taxpayer is.

The rate payer in Japan didn't pay the external cost of the nuke meltdown. If you factor in those external costs then that power is very, very expensive.

What about the subsidies for wind and solar. Are we subsidizing wind and solar companies or are we subsidizing technology development the same way we subsidize development of clean coal technology. Plus, we subsidize ethanol and nukes a lot more than we do wind and solar.

Just thought I might throw a little fly in the ointment for those who think Green and jobs cannot be combined. Of course the government cannot create real jobs, but corporations focused on high-tech resource efficiency and overcoming current or looming supply shortages most certainly can. To a certain extent some of the high costs of energy are government creations. However, dealing with these restrictions at home is clearly making German companies fit for the future.

Uh-huh. That's why even the German MSM reports that electricity rates are projected to increase by 70% by 2020 (due to the necessary massive subsidies) when these rates are already at or near the top of rates in the Western world. All this idiocy to achieve the pipe dream of "Energiewende" - to reduce a globally insignificant amount of emission of a benign compound known as CO2, and to destroy the nuclear energy business. Congratulations, chalk up a "win" for the ecofascists! The destruction of any energy-intensive industry (and that's a lot) in Germany by this is a given. Stupid^3

Um, I got the 50% number from you. Apparently you thought it was important, and now you turn around. Typical when arguing with “greens.”

And as far as more math goes, have you ever looked into the energy balance of manufacturing solar panels - most of which are made in China using very inefficient processes - versus their lifetime output? Short version: it’s better than break even using the best processes, but not the ones used in China. And we can also get into the industrial polution issues, but why bother? I’m sure they don’t matter, right?

All your “green” energy does is suck up money to relocate fossil fuel energy use to one of the dirtiest fossil fuel burning nations on the planet. One that generally doesn’t bother with “clean coal.”

I don’t think there’s much question who doesn’t “get it.”

40
posted on 06/04/2012 10:56:27 PM PDT
by piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)

That's a little vague and probably wrong. The rise from 260 or 280 up to the present 395 ppm is from fossil fuels. If mankind were not in the picture there would have been a rise anyway, but only to perhaps 300 ppm at the most. The reason is simple: oceans warming naturally (as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age) were outgassing CO2. Now they are ingassing and that is measurable and factual. So the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is not from the oceans, it is from fossil fuels and land use changes.

Thanks for the ping. It’s unbelievable how arrogant these Germans are about their environmental purity when all they have done is ship their dirty and energy intensive industries to China where the GDP to fossil fuel ratio is much lower. That has made their phony global warming problem worse not better.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.